RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.

(22-10-2016 11:59 AM)theBorg Wrote:

(22-10-2016 11:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: It doesn't have to even try. Religion is educated countries is going away all by itself.
It's very well known that in Northern European countries, religion has had a precipitous decline. These ancient fairy stories no long speak to people who have an education. You might try to get one, at some point. That way you would't embarrass yourself quite so often with the stupidity you spout. Couldn't your Jebus send someone who has a better grasp of evangelization ? Are the pathetic like of you the best he's got ? Have you ever converted even ONE person ?

RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.

(22-10-2016 01:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:

(22-10-2016 12:14 PM)theBorg Wrote: You hardly can mean that.

Considering its plan as day and demonstrably obvious he in fact CAN mean that.

He could be simply brave. But the atheistic organization is in no way as powerful as this particular religion. So, let us be brave, but very, very, very, extremely very careful, dear (but very poor and politically very weak) destroyers of the false religions!

RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.

(22-10-2016 02:09 PM)theBorg Wrote:

(22-10-2016 01:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote: Considering its plan as day and demonstrably obvious he in fact CAN mean that.

He could be simply brave. But the atheistic organization is in no way as powerful as this particular religion. So, let us be brave, but very, very, very, extremely very careful, dear (but very poor and politically very weak) destroyers of the false religions!

No shut up. He's right and you're wrong.

Kneel mortal before Whiskey I, Lord of Dalmore, Duke of Jameson, Defender of the Sloshed, and God-Emperor of Holy Terra.

RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.

(22-10-2016 02:09 PM)theBorg Wrote: He could be simply brave. But the atheistic organization is in no way as powerful as this particular religion. So, let us be brave, but very, very, very, extremely very careful, dear (but very poor and politically very weak) destroyers of the false religions!

What's "the atheistic organization"?

How many times do we have to tell you that there is not an atheist conspiracy, cabal, or any other sort of organization of the type you're hallucinating (a rival to the church). The closest that has ever been was the Communist Party of various countries, which made atheism one of its tenets, much like the Republican Party of the USA makes Christianity one of its tenets.

But what's this "be very careful", business?

It sounds very much to me like you, having clearly been made a fool of in the argument, are now threatening us with the power you think the church still holds.

Your ignorant version of this religion is dying. The more liberal version may stick around for a while, since it is tradition and comfort to so many people.

Education is now becoming more readily available, and kids can check the facts before the religious programming has a chance to take hold of their minds and rewire it so they sound like you.

Your religion will die the way your career did-- not with a bang, but with condescension to your face and laughter behind your back as people who recognize that the things you are saying are insane quietly move people like you to the various backwaters of our society.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

"Because few studies have been done, the discrepancy in rates could simply be a statistical artifact, in which case it should vanish as sample sizes grow larger, notes Eric Shoubridge, a molecular geneticist at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Another possibility is that the rate is higher in some sites of the DNA than others—so-called “hot spots.” Indeed, almost all the mutations detected in Parsons and Howell's studies occur at known hot spots, says University of Munich molecular geneticist Svante Pääbo."

I see no disproof here. To say: "the work is not well done" is not the disproof. 1) "as sample sizes grow larger, notes Eric Shoubridge" was this performed by Eric?
Or nobody cares to glorify the True God???
2) Critics: "Indeed, almost all the mutations detected in Parsons and Howell's studies occur at known hot spots". The critics have committed the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. How hypocritical! The atheistic agenda made the Scientists subjective!

You do not understand statistics, do you. And you completely misunderstood the point about hot spots.
You are blinded by your insane delusions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.

(22-10-2016 05:27 AM)theBorg Wrote:

(22-10-2016 04:41 AM)Deesse23 Wrote: You are constantly and persistently making a fool out of yourself. .........
You are a very, very sad being.

Not quite so, dear friend. I hope, what I will remember forever the truth about the 1998-Science paper. So, I hope, I will never use the same debunked argument again.

Look: the Kent Hovind used to say, what the Sun becomes rapidly smaller (so, it debunks the steadiness of the stellar evolution). But then the "kind" atheists have told him the true information. Now the Kent is not using this debunked argument. So, the Kent is not a bad person. Correct?

(22-10-2016 05:27 AM)theBorg Wrote: Now the Kent is not using this debunked argument. So, the Kent is not a bad person. Correct?

RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.

(22-10-2016 01:38 AM)theBorg Wrote:

(22-10-2016 01:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: ........
In other words, he was wrong, he knew it, and he wanted to know why. Later research turned up better methods.

So the original scientist never claimed what you say. He asked others to find better methods of looking at his data. And they did so.
.........

I see. I am not the enemy of True Science. But did this story destroy the dogma? Let us see. Of course, originally the Adam and Eve were perfect, without the mutations. But soon after creation, the pair has committed the ORIGINAL SIN. This can instantly and greatly mess up their genes. Correct? Yes, it is. Is known to me, what even such "small" sin as the fu**-words do mutate the genes. What is why, I have following signature:

None of that is science. You are a fool.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.